Such is John Key’s Midas touch, he could probably sell ice-cubes to Eskimos – and at a premium price.

Oh please. Did Key sell mining to the New Zealand public? No.

Did Key manage to sell his position on s59 reform in the smacking referendum? That would be No.

Did Key’s personal endorsement manage to sell Melissa Lee to the Mt Albert electorate? That would be a Hell No.

Has Key sold Maori on the re-branded foreshore and seabed legislation? The Mana Party says No.

Did Key sell Auckland on the Supercity merger, or Christchurch on CERA?

Public opinion says No, but they were forced through any way.

Did Key sell national standards to teachers, or labour market “reforms” to workers?

See above, No.

Did Key in his HardTalk interview sell our 100% Pure brand to the UK?

Catastrophically No.

Did Key sell his cycleway to the world? Hah hah No.

Key remains popular, it is true, but it’s very seldom that he manages to sell we the people something that we don’t want. His popularity depends on not picking fights with public opinion.

The issues on which he does succeed – selling useless budgets, tax cuts for the rich and the GST swindle – are those where most of the public have little interest, or where the media do the sales job for him.

In short, Armstrong’s belief in Key’s “Midas touch” is a product of his imagination. He might do well to reflect on the true moral of the Midas story. In trying to acquire more and more wealth, Midas deprived himself of everything that really mattered.”

___________________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT:

errrr….. check out the only polls that really count – election (by-election) results and think again?

How come in the ‘safe’ National seats encompassed by the Botany and Pakuranga electorates – there was only a 36% turnout in the Botany by-election and 30% turnout in the Howick by-election?

How come in the Botany by-election more (former?) National Party voters stayed home (9000) than voted (8000) for National’s Jami-Lee Ross?

Did you notice ACT received less than 700 votes in the Botany by-election?

Where were the opinion polls that predicted THAT result prior to the election?

Not a particularly good look for the National “A” Team, and National “B” (Bra$h) Team – hoping to put together the next ‘Rogernomic$ Coalition Government?

the more i have to read ur incessant viarreah (verbal diarreah) the more I start to dislike your comments Penny. It’s almost as if you don’t actually make any points but post many non sequiters wrapped up in a question.
This botany by election example is bunkum. By elections aren’t an indication of the real feeling at all.

__________________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT:

12 June 2011 at 11:36 am “This botany by election example is bunkum. By elections aren’t an indication of the real feeling at all.”

Really ‘oscar’? errrr…. silly me.

I thought actual ELECTIONS are where the voting public actually decide who obtains public office?

Perhaps you missed this analysis of the Botany by-election result by NZ Herald’s Chief Political Reporter – John Armstrong?

Exactly why the Labour leader is smiling might not seem immediately obvious given that National’s Jami-Lee Ross won Saturday’s Botany byelection in a canter, securing almost double the number of votes of his Labour counterpart.

The answer is that everything is relative in politics. Labour did better than it hoped. National did not fare as well as it would have expected.

Of some worry to National will be the bleeding of its votes to the New Citizen Party, which picked up 10.5 per cent of the total candidate vote and pushed Act into fourth place.

If replicated in electorates across Auckland with large populations of New Zealand Chinese, such splintering of centre-right support could see large piles of wasted votes if the new party fails to reach the 5 per cent threshold.

That could diminish the centre-right’s representation in Parliament by one or two seats – seats which may well be crucial for National to retain power.

It is questionable, however, how meaningful conclusions drawn from a byelection can be, let alone one as stifled by circumstances as this one. Still, the debut of the New Citizen Party and National’s failure to lift its vote would seem to pour cold water on the possibility of National securing a majority alone. The complicating factor is Saturday’s abysmally low turnout.

However, the non-vote would more likely be weighted in Labour’s favour.

The 36.6 per cent turnout – half that of a general election – meant both major parties got fewer votes than at the 2008 election.

Labour’s vote proved more robust. National’s vote halved from more than 17,000 to just over 8000. In comparison, Labour’s vote fell, but far less dramatically – from around 6500 to just over 4000. ”

___________________________________________

In my considered opinion, as a candidate in that by-election, it proved that campaigning on the issues – particularly against asset sales – was politically effective.

(Former?) National party voters get a power bill every month, and know full well that applying the ‘competitive’ model to a natural monopoly such as the supply of electricity – just duplicates resources – sets up a multiplicity of profit-making empires – and causes power prices to go up – not down.

It is also my considered opinion that the way that ‘democracy’ works in New Zealand tends to operate according to the ‘Golden Rule’ – ‘those who have the gold – make the rules’, and we tend to get the government that the majority of big business want us to have.

This is achieved through mainstream media manipulation of ‘public opinion’.

In my view, the Botany by-election results caused quite some consternation, as it was realised that asset sales were NOT a vote-winner.

So – the tactic used was to try and undermine the main political party with the stated position of opposing asset sales – the Labour Party – particularly by attacking Phil Goff’s leadership.

In my view – it was realised that National were not going to get the numbers to govern alone. As ACT under Rodney Hide’s leadership was looking unlikely to regain Epsom or the 5% Party vote threshold.

Remember – the ACT candidate in the Botany by-election got less than 700 votes.

Given that the personnel and policies of National and ACT are so readily interchangeable, there is essentially no real difference between them.

National and ACT are the National “A” Team and National “B” (Bra$h) Team.

A vote for John is a vote for Don.

A vote for Don is a vote for John.

A vote for either of them is a vote for more ‘Rogernomic$’.

The more ‘shonky’ John Key is exposed as leading the corporate raid on New Zealand – (once a corporate raider – always a corporate raider?) – the more I believe that National will plummet in the polls.

John Key’s forced smile will look more strained and phoney and his eyes will look more hollow as the spin-doctored ‘ordinary bloke’ mask continues to slip………..

The Official Results process starts tomorrow Sunday 6 March and is expected to be completed by Wednesday 16 March. All votes counted on election night will be recounted. Special declaration votes will be processed and counted. The target to release the Official Results for the Botany by-election is noon Wednesday 16 March 2011.

2) National’s ‘safe’ majority was SLASHED compared to the 2008 Botany election and the majority of National voters DIDN’T even bother to vote compared to 2008.

The winning candidate in the 2008 election, Pansy Wong (National Party), captured a majority (56.22%) of the 30,919 valid electorate votes cast for candidates in the Botany electorate. The Botany electorate was a new electorate for the 2008 election and therefore there are no previous election results. The National Party also captured a majority (61.25%) of the party votes in Botany. Turnout (total votes cast as a proportion of enrolled electors) in 2008 was 76.29%.

2008 Election Results (Electorate)

Candidate

Valid Votes

Share (%)

WONG, Pansy (NAT)

17,382

56.22

TAWA, Koro (LAB)

6,510

21.06

WANG, Kenneth (ACT)

4,717

15.26

COOPER, Peter (GP)

1,226

3.97

CARTER, Judy (UFNZ)

428

1.38

CHEAM, Racheal (JAP)

304

0.98

KAN, Simon (KIWI)

212

0.69

SUBRAMANIAN, Raj (IND)

140

0.45

Total Valid Votes

30,919

100.00

Total Votes Cast

31,305

101.25

Winning Candidate: WONG, Pansy – majority 10872

For interpretation of abbreviations, see Glossary.

2008 Election Results – Party Vote

Party

Valid Votes

Share (%)

National Party

19,355

61.25

Labour Party

7,958

25.18

ACT New Zealand

1,528

4.84

Green Party

756

2.39

New Zealand First Party

678

2.15

New Zealand Pacific Party

295

0.93

United Future

220

0.70

Jim Anderton’s Progressive

217

0.69

Family Party

166

0.53

Kiwi Party

125

0.40

Mäori Party

98

0.31

The Bill and Ben Party

98

0.31

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

62

0.20

Workers Party

13

0.04

Libertarianz

10

0.03

Alliance

8

0.03

The Republic of New Zealand Party

7

0.02

RAM – Residents Action Movement

6

0.02

Democrats for Social Credit

2

0.01

Total Valid Votes

31,602

100.00

Total Votes Cast

31,733

100.41

Voter Enrolment and Turnout 2005, 2008

Botany

NZ

Botany

NZ

2005

2008

Voting Age Population (VAP)*

0

0

46,200

3,138,000

Electors on General Roll (EGR)

0

0

41,969

2,761,093

Electors on Māori Roll

0

0

1,385

229,666

Total Enrolled**

0

0

43,354

2,990,759

Total Votes Cast by EGR (TVC)

0

0

32,019

2,233,146

% VAP Enrolled

0

0

94

95

Turnout (TVC as % EGR)

0

0

76

81

* Estimated population statistics as at: June 2005; June 2008; ** Enrolment statistics as at: September 2005; November 2008.

3) Despite both National Prime Minister John Key and National Party candidate Jami-Lee Ross imploring National Party supporters to get out and vote in the Botany by-election, the majority did NOT. WHY?

To avoid the Left try­ing to claim the result any other way, I have done a com­par­i­son of the can­di­date vote for the Botany By-Election com­pared to the can­di­date vote from the 2008 Gen­eral elec­tion. This way we are com­par­ing apples with apples. The can­di­dates name and per­cent­age of the Can­di­dates vote that they got shown. The pre­vi­ous can­di­date for their respec­tive par­ties in brack­ets next to them with their per­cent­age of the can­di­date votes shown as well. It only shows the 3 par­ties that re-stood can­di­dates in this by election.

So clearly, on the pre­lim­i­nary results, Jami-Lee has basi­cally held the can­di­date vote per­cent­age where it was under Pansy Wong. Michael Wood has seen an increase to Labours can­di­date vote of 6.79%. labour’s increase is to be expected Michael Wood actu­ally cam­paigned whereas Koro Tawa barely turned up last elec­tion. On the other hand ACT has seen their can­di­date vote drop by almost 11%.

I do won­der how many votes the New Cit­i­zen Party can­di­date (which got 10.5% of the can­di­date vote) took from each Par­ties candidate.

All in all, this shows that National has held its vote in the elec­torate. So a good result for National.”

Total votes dropped from 30,919 in 2008 to 14,888 (+ specials) in 2011.

National/Ross won 17 of the 20 polling places

His best place was Howick, where Ross got over 68%

The worst place was Clover Park where Ross got 4.7% only, and Wood got 90.4%

Ross got over 60% in 10 of the 20 places, and over 50% in 15 of the 20 places

In Meadowlands, Paul Young of New Citizen got his best result with 16.7% – pipping Michael Wood on 15.8% to third place

Incidentially this is the first by-election in at least 30 years where the seat was held by the Government, with no significant decline in the share of the vote.

Taranaki-King Country, Selwyn, Tamaki, Timaru, East Coast Bays, Rangitikei all had the Government come bloody close to losing the seat, or actually losing the seat. The last by-election for a Government-held seat which saw the vote share not change much was probably Pahiatua in 1977.

Pansy Wong got 56% of the vote in 2008, and Jami-Lee Ross got 55% of the vote in 2011. The turnout was (I estimate) around 38%, which is very low – even for by-elections. The majority is 3,996 and will end up being above 4,000 after specials. The turnout is half that of 2008, so it’s equal to around a 9,000 majority in a general election.

Michael Wood got 28% of the vote, which is up from the invisible Koro Tawa. Of course there was no Green candidate this time as they didn’t nominate in time.

In third place with 10.5% of the vote was Paul Young of the New Citizen Party. Looks like he piced up some of the vote which went to Kenneth Wang last time.

Congratulations to Jami-Lee Ross, the new MP for Botany. He has a long career ahead of him. Kudos to Michael Wood also for a sold effort he’ll be pleased with.

IMPLICATION: Is Prime Minister John Key losing support amongst National Party voters in the only ‘poll’ that REALLY counts?

An election result?

The BIG question is – how many of these 9000 National Party voters who effectively gave both Prime Minister John Key and Jami-Lee Ross the fingers, by not bothering to vote in the Botany by-election when asked, have permanently deserted National?

How many former National Party voters will NZ First pick up in the party vote?

National Party hacks can put on their bravest, shonky faces and phoney smiles, and try and spin these Botany by-election results any way they can – but FACTS are FACTS.

National’s numerical majority was SLASHED.

Thousands of (former?) National supporters in Botany ignored the call to vote.

End of story.

5) If the Botany by-election is to be seen as a litmus test for support for the John Key-led National/ ACT Government proposed ‘partial privatisation’ /’mixed ownership’ ASSET SALES proposal – then arguably it is a significant VOTE LOSER.

Arguably, it is not popular even amongst core National Party voters?

If it was popular – why didn’t 9000 National Party Botany voters get out and vote, and show their support for National when asked by ‘Mr Popular’ PM John Key?

a) I did expect to get more than 124 votes, true, (but it’s still 124 more votes than I had before! J), but from Day One, (15 December 2010) I stated that my main reason for standing was in order to focus as big a public spotlight as possible on the issues of opposition to corruption, and GENUINE transparency:

“If this National/ACT Government thought that the departure of Pansy Wong would switch the light off the corruption issue – they could not have been more mistaken,” says Water Pressure Spokesperson and ‘anti-corruption campaigner, Penny Bright.

“I will be standing as an independent candidate in the Botany by-election on an anti-corruption / pro(GENUINE) transparency platform, in order to focus as big a public spotlight as possible on these issues.”

b) John Key then helped to focus the Botany by-election on the privatisation of state assets. Presumably he (and his ‘spin doctors’) were hoping that the public majority had had a collective frontal lobotomy and forgotten who had benefited and where the money had gone with the last bout of ‘commercialise, corporatize – PRIVATISE’ Rogernomic$?

Responses to partial state asset sale proposal

NZPA January 26, 2011, 6:31 pm

Prime Minister John Key:

“We… expect to acquire $33 billion of net new assets over the next five years, including new schools, operating theatres, ultra-fast broadband and major investments in our state highways and other transport infrastructure. That is a considerable spend by any reckoning.

“At the margin there are two ways we can acquire new assets — either we can borrow more or we can change the mix of assets we own.”

…………………………………………………………………………………

NZPA

c) My comment ‘partial privatisation is like partial pregnancy – there is no such thing’ was widely publicised, following the first Botany by-election candidates debate on 15 February 2011.

To avoid using the ‘p’ (privatisation) word – National hacks now use the term ‘mixed ownership’ model.

(Yeah – whatever…………… )

CONCLUSION:

As far as I am concerned – my standing in the Botany by-election in order to help publicise and increase public understanding about privatisation and corruption and the need for GENUINE ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable central and local government’ – has been extremely effective and successful.

The barometer which I am using to measure this effectiveness and success is the slashed National Party numerical majority and massive 9000 National Party ‘no show’ on election day.

I expect Prime Minister John Key’s shonky smile to look more forced and fake than ever, as his current and corporate raider past is revealed.

I will continue to act as an INDEPENDENT ‘Public Watchdog’, and do my best to keep the public informed of developments, working together with others who believe that the public has a right to know where exactly our public monies are going, and who is benefiting, and to whom exactly NZ is indebted.

(In my view – the ‘line in the sand’ is not between so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ but between the public and corporate interests.

EG: ‘Sensible sentencing’? How about ‘sensible arresting’?

Did the Police arrest the wrong person?
From the past – ex-Mayor Dick Hubbard having Penny Bright arrested on International World Water Day, 22 March 2007:

Mr Ross’ majority was around 7000 votes fewer than that achieved by Pansy Wong for the east Auckland seat at the 2008 general election.

That headline number looks bad.

Yet the extremely low-turnout (36.7%, or just under half the voters who turn out for the general election) saw Mr Lee-Ross actually snare a slightly higher percentage of votes (56%) than Ms Wong (55.52%), whose resignation sparked the byelection.

“I think it shows that the government’s in good shape. But I think the turnout is so low and the conditions are so unusual that I wouldn’t read too much into it either way,” Mr Key said.

Act vote collapses
There can be no finessing the Act result, however. The party’s candidate, Lyn Murphy, recieved just 674 votes (or 4.5%), and was pushed into fourth place by the Asian-backed New Citizens Party, which collected 1572.

At the 2008 general election, Act’s Kenneth Wang drew 4717 votes, or 15.07%.

The New Citizens Party members include former Labour candidate Stephen Ching and Jack Chen, Jack Chen, one of the driving forces behind the bid by Hong Kong company Natural Dairy NZ for the Crafar farms.

Labour gains
Labour’s candidate, union organiser Michael Wood, increased his party’s share of the vote from 21% at the 2008 general election to 27.9%.

But with turnout (36.5%) the second lowest on record for a byelection amid the distraction of the Christchurch quake, wet weather and the wide assumption Mr Ross would romp home (14,911 Botonians voted, compared to 31,305 in 2008), pundits should be hesitent to draw too many conclusions from Mr Wood’s advance.

Ross wins Botany seat for National

Jami-Lee Ross celebrated victory for National in the Botany byelection with Prime Minister John Key last night.

Ross polled 8150 votes or 56.7 per cent of the turnout. Labour Party candidate Michael Wood was runner-up with 4154 votes (27.9 per cent) and Paul Young of the New Citizens Party was third with 1572 (10.5 per cent).

Turnout was low, about 36.5 per cent.

The byelection was called to find a replacement for National MP Pansy Wong, who resigned after criticism of her use of the international travel subsidy.

Ross, 25, becomes the youngest current MP. He was voted into the Auckland Council last year but left to campaign for the Botany seat.

First elected to the Manukau City Council in 2004, Mr Ross was returned in 2007.

Ross said he wanted to bring “young blood” and “a strong voice for Botany” to Parliament, with a focus on law and order and the economy.

The winning candidate in the 2008 election, Pansy Wong (National Party), captured a majority (56.22%) of the 30,919 valid electorate votes cast for candidates in the Botany electorate. The Botany electorate was a new electorate for the 2008 election and therefore there are no previous election results. The National Party also captured a majority (61.25%) of the party votes in Botany. Turnout (total votes cast as a proportion of enrolled electors) in 2008 was 76.29%.

I refer to your letter dated 27 January 2011, which we received on 28 January 2011, requesting information about Secured Fixed Rate Bonds.

Please note the following response to each question raised:

1. Please confirm the total amount raised through the Secured Fixed Rate Bond, which closed on 19 March 2010?

Auckland City Council raised $350 million on 24 March 2010 via a retail bond issue.

2. How much of this Bond offer has been spent?

All the cash received on the bond issue has been utilised. Council is a net borrower therefore does not hold significant cash for long periods.

3. What has the money been spent on?

The use of the bond issue proceeds was outlined on pages 7 and 17 in the investment statement dated 17 February 2010 (attached).

The use of proceeds was for general financing requirements of the Auckland City Council, including debt retirement and capital expenditure. In addition, Auckland City Council on-lent some of the net proceeds of this bond offer to other existing councils in the Auckland region.I This was to avoid the need for those councils to undertake their own debt raising, thereby coordinating a borrowing programme across the region. On-lending to the other councils reflected the announcement by the Auckland Transition Agency that the borrowing and treasury functions of the existing councils would be integrated during the transition to the new Auckland Council.

Please state in full the amount of the net proceeds of the bond issue which was used for debt retirement by Auckland City Council.

Please state in full the amount of the net proceeds of the bond issue which was used for capital expenditure by Auckland City Council.

Please state the amount of the net proceeds of the bond issue which was on-lent to other councils prior to the amalgamation

Please state the amount of the net proceeds of the bond issue which was not used once amalgamation took place.

4. Name the companies’, contractors and subcontractors who have received funds from this source?

Council manages its treasury and cash flow on a council-wide basis. Specific cash inflows are not tracked to specific cash outflows (apart from tagged funds), therefore council cannot identify individual third parties that would have received the cash from the bond issue.

Please answer this question properly in the spirt it was put i.e

It does not seem appropriate, legal or true that an organization of the size of the Auckland Council can say that ” Specific cash inflows are not tracked to specific cash outflows”(apart from tagged funds), therefore council cannot identify individual third parties that would have received the cash from the bond issue.

Under my original OIA I wish this questioned to be answered in full, I also expect question 5 answered in full.

5. Name the amount received and the projects related to each company?

Please see response to question 4 above.

6. Where and when was this information made public?

Re: Answers 4,5 &6 Please note it was clear that my original questions asked “Where and when” were answers to question 4 and 5 made public. NOT WHERE OR WHEN Was DETAILS OF THE SHARE OFFER MADE PUBLIC! Please answer question 6 as it was asked.

6.Where and When was information made public about the projects that received funding and the companies involved!

(THE INFORMATION BELOW IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION) The entire thrust of this OIA is about where funds raised from the bond offer have been spent . NOT on the floating of the offer!

The information on the retail bond issue was made public on a few occasions these are as follows;

Intention to make a new retail bond issue was announced by NZX on 24 December 2009.

The issue document (Investment Statement) had the details of the bond issue, dated 17 February 2010.

When the bonds were issued, there was an NZX announcement on 24 March 2010.

It was included in the quotation notice for the NZX as per the NZX announcement on 24 March 2010.

7. How is information made public about the amount raised and how it is spent?

Please ee response to question six above.

8. Will the Mayor Len Brown uphold his election promise to open the books to the public? Clearly this questions inferred ” when and how will this info” be made public” I find the response arrogant and glib. Please answer when will and how will the mayor make public his election promise to open the books!

Yes

9. Will the Mayor Len Brown fulfill his election promise to undertake line-by-line analias of where our public money is going before agreeing to a rate rise? Again I find your response arrogant and glib.

Questions 9. inferred “when and how will the mayor fulfill his election promise to undertake line-by-line analysis of where our public money is going before agreeing to a rate rise!

Yes

10. What possible reason could the Auckland Council expect to raise the rates when the public has already underwritten or gone Guarantor for a total of $350,000,000?

Rising inflation, increases to ongoing debt servicing costs,

Answer 3. suggests that debt retirement was one use of the bond issue funds, therefore indicate exactly how much debt was retired and how much is still being serviced. What funds where spent on goods and services, what companies received funds/cash/payment from this source. (Not a hard question to answer)

and any increase in the level of service provided by council or an increase service provide by the council.

Please details what increase of services has occurred. Please note these two sentences mean exactly the same thing, I am surprised that this sentenced was not edited!

are the primary drivers for rates increases by council. Any increases to these variables (please detail what variables you mean) will require council to raise rates to meet its day to day obligations. The $350 million proceeds received by Auckland City Council in March 2010 from the retail bond issue has been completely utilised as discussed in question 3 above. (Detail question 3 as requested showing full utilization of the total funds of $350,000,000)

If you have any further queries please contact me on 301 3810, quoting Official Information Request No. 9000107451.

In fact you’re such a nuisance that when I was at law school we used your CoA case re: your removal from the Auckland City Council as a test case for advocacy which draws out many laughs at your stupidity. “Dick”

Even the international level law kids who are masters at advocacy can’t find a leg to stand on to appeal your case! Then we all go to the pub and talk about how we would hate to have to have a client like you.

Thought you ought to know….
__________________________________________________________________________________________

MY RESPONSE:

Is that right ‘Captain Neurotic’?

It’s all good – I defend myself in Court – so haven’t needed lawyers to do that for me.

(I would be most unlikely to engage the services of arrogant incompetents, such as those with whom you appear to associate?

For the record – I was arrested 22 times defending the public’s right to ‘open, transparent and democratically accountable’ local government, defended myself in Court, without having ever been to University or had a days formal legal training – yet it is 21 – 1 to me.

‘Public Watchdog’ Penny Bright takes on both City Hall and the Police and wins 21 -1?

That’s a track record I respectfully suggest a number of professional lawyers would rather like to have.

(I say that – because that’s what some of them – who are not mere law STUDENTS – but professional trained and practiced lawyers, have said to me – including some notable QCs.

Just thought you ought to know …

err…. so – who was the ‘stupid’ one?

‘Sensible sentencing’?

How about ‘sensible arresting’?

Did the Police arrest the wrong person?
From the past – ex-Mayor Dick Hubbard having Penny Bright arrested on International World Water Day

Jamie was very confident in the beginning but never stated clearly how he would enforce the law or how crime reduction would be improved in Botany. He mentioned that 300 policemen was recruited under the rule of the National Party, he has mentioned some statistical figures, but did not mention about the number of unreported crimes made to the police. Concerns were made in regards to the numerous incidents of bag snatching at the Pakuranga Mall, Botany Town Centre and Chinatown. These were questions being asked, asking why he did not respond to these matters, but he did not respond clearly. You be the judge.

Michael spoke calmly and mentioned how unemployment may lead to the increasing crime rate. There was a lot of blame against the National party. However when Labour ruled for 9 years there was very little improvements. We would rather see some constructive ideas and actions put into place rather than seeing the finger pointing and pushing the blame around. You be the judge

Lyn spoke very softly but at the end we came to understand from her speech, that the “3 Strikes” bill was active and put in place for violent crimes, but not so active for minor crimes such as bag snatching and burglary. We would like to see some actions taken towards improvements on the self-defence bill, but again, thoughts on crime reduction in Botany was not mentioned.

Penny is new to the public but speaks genuinely and talked about how we should know our rights, and the consequences if we didn’t. She is the ‘watchdog’ that advises us about what goes on behind the curtains of the political world, corruption and conspiracies, that we all as citizens should be aware of. She is not scared to speak against anyone. She appears confident and fearless to speak for the people of Botany. You be the judge.

Paul has proved that his multi-lingual ability gives him the advantage to represent the Chinese community. He mentioned that he is also the vice chairman of the ACRC. Good on him for contributing twice at the Safety Fair, but has this made any impact or improvements on the crime situation? You be the judge.

James introduced himself and his team from Howick, Flat Bush, Otara & Botany Downs. He also expressed his condolences to the 2 victims who recently had their homes burgled 5 times in Papatoetoe, and Bucklands Beach. At least they showed us they want to work with the people and develop an understanding and good relationship. I commented on how their ticketing on drivers is harsh, yet they should be more harsh on real crime.

National’s political fortunes are totally intertwined with those of Prime Minister John Key.

It is my considered opinion that as John Key’s carefully spin-doctored ‘ordinary bloke’ hollow mask continues to slip, and his ‘true blue’ corporate raider past and present is exposed – John Key’s support will continue to slide in the polls.

(National’s support will follow………………)

It appears that no one else it asking John Key the HARD questions that I am:

No one else that I know of has taken a private prosecution against John Key over Tranz Rail:

(There was effectively a mainstream media black out on this issue – at the same time there was a concerted \’MAN ON THE MOON\’ headlines campaign against Winston Peters and NZ First to prevent their attaining the 5% party vote.)

Irrespective of the outcome of this by-election, the public spotlight is now starting to focus on these related issues of privatisation and corruption.

(HOW is it decided who gets the privatised contracts?)

It is my considered opinion, that ‘asset sales’ / ‘partial privatisation’ is going to be the pivotal election issue in both the Botany by-election, and the forthcoming general election.

If a significant number of Labour, Green and NZ First Party supporters cast a strategic vote, on top of support that I have been told that I already have – this election result could be quite historic!

An Independent Public Watchdog INSIDE the House?

With access to all that information (in a proper way – of course!

Unlimited written questions to Ministers?

Access to Parliamentary Library staff researchers?

(I know this because I have already been down to Parliament, spoken to a senior Parliamentary staffer, got my own copy of Parliamentary Standing Orders, and am ready to get stuck in – boots and all from Day One

Finding out EXACTLY where our public monies are going?

Finding out WHO exactly is benefiting?

Finding out how exactly ‘State capture’ (where vested interests get their way at the policy level before legislation is passed), operates in NZ?

Then letting the public know what I have found out?

Unlike young National Party hack Jami-Lee Ross, (who refers to John Key as ‘The Boss’), and will be expected to sit down, shut up and do as he is told.

FYI – this is a 3 minute You Tube clip of the views of five of the Botany by-election candidates on asset sales, taken at the first candidate debate on 15 February 2011:

Quarter page, Pg 3 advertisement in both Howick and Botany Times (2 March 2011) and Howick and Pakuranga Times (3 March 2011)!
These free Times community newspapers cover the entire Botany electorate plus more.

This is the wording – (can’t access the ad on-line unfortunately – just asked.)

Irrespective of the result of the election (5 March 2011) – I will have achieved my main aim of shining a public spotlight on the issues of privatisation and corruption.

Becoming the first MP elected as a ‘Public Watchdog’ to act from INSIDE the House will be a HUGE bonus!

You Tube clip taken before the 2008 election where I explain why I made a complaint to the Police and Serious Fraud Office over John Key and Tranz Rail?

That when neither the Police nor the SFO chose to investigate John Key’s attempt to flush out commercially sensitive information about Tranz Rail through an OIA and complaint to the Ombudsman, at a time he had an undisclosed pecuniary interest – I took a private prosecution under s228 of the Crimes Act?

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to obtain any property, service, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration,—

(b) dishonestly and without claim of right, uses or attempts to use any document.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

That despite the continuous onslaught of ‘MAN ON THE MOON’ headlines against Winston Peters and NZ First – there was not ONE sentence in the NZ Herald about my complaints to the Police or SFO, or my private prosecution against John Key?

Is that how democracy works in NZ?

We get the Government the majority of big business want us to have – through manipulation of mainstream media?

“TVNZ-Colmar Brunton and 3News polls last night showed National was unscathed despite its proposal to partially sell state-owned assets.”

“Prime Minister John Key was still first choice for prime minister in both political polls, despite taking an 8-point hit in the TVNZ poll to 48 percent.”

Hmmmm………… Prime Minister John Key takes an ‘8-point hit in the TVNZ poll’….. doesn’t quite sound like National was ‘unscathed’ over its ‘proposal to partially sell state-owned assets’?

I notice that the John Key /National Government PR spin machine has gone into turbo-drive.

The majority of New Zealanders have not had a collective frontal lobotomy, and do remember that what is good for big business is usually not good for most of us, and HATE the ‘P’ word – “PRIVATISATION”.

So – John Key has moved away from mentioning the word ‘privatisation’ (partial or otherwise) and the term now referred to is ‘mixed ownership’…..

Good try – but sorry John – it won’t work.

It is my prediction that the John Key ‘ordinary bloke’ honeymoon is well and truly over.

As John Key’s ‘true blue’ corporate raider colours increasingly show through his carefully spin-doctored packaging – his (and National’s) slide in the polls will continue.

Hopefully dramatically.

The most ‘dramatic’ poll result would be if I were to be elected as the new MP for Botany on my clear anti-privatisation /anti-corruption ‘Public Watchdog’ platform.

About

Through my involvement with this group I have become a Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater and Auckland regional governance matters.

I have also been publicly acknowledged as an “Anti-corruption campaigner”.
I have started my blog so that those who are not on the email can access the information .

I was an Auckland Mayoral candidate – standing to help STOP THE $UPERCITY – the corporate takeover of the Auckland region, which has been forced upon the public majority without our lawful consent through a ‘binding poll’.

I stood in the Botany by-election as an independent candidate, on an anti-corruption / pro-transparency, anti-privatisation/asset sale platform.

I believe that is is high time that NZ got our ‘House’ in order, and established the legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption, and ensure genuine transparency and accountability in local and central government and within the judiciary.

I am currently standing in the Auckland Council Howick Ward by-election on the following ‘platform’:

NO RATE$ INCREASES!

CUT OUT THE CONSULTANTS AND THE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

OPEN THE BOOKS!

GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE CONTRACTORS; SCOPE, TERM AND VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS!

BRING BACK COUNCIL WORKS DEPARTMENTS!

PROVIDE COUNCIL SERVICES ‘IN-HOUSE’ AND CUT OUT ALL THOSE PRIVATE ‘PIGGIES -IN -THE -MIDDLE’!

If private sector provision is SO ‘efficient’ – then how come over the last 20 years rates have gone up – not down?)